A comment I ran across in the handgun registration thread:
To me, there is a strange underlying assumption here. I don’t understand this Shadowy Institution Out To Get ME mentality…I may be a pretty cynical dragon, but even I have some measure of faith in the ability of the duly elected representatives to generally do what the people think is a good idea. Add in the inherent trait of the structure to impede change (particularly quick or drastic change) and it winds up usually evening out the troughs and peaks of wildly changing extremes. All in all, the system seems to work, which leads me to ask:
Where did “of the people, by the people” and “for the people” turn into (ominous voice) “The Government”? Why is it so popular to feel victimized by the national government rather than seeing it as a tool of the people for our civilization? How can someone praise the American system of government at the same time as they accuse it of being no better than a barely-restrained facist regime?
Mek-- of the people by the people? Well, one might be able to make a decent argument that that is not what we have. One might also put forward a decent argument that that is mob rule. In either case, the modern American government is more concerned with removal of freedom than protection of it.
Some call it “practical.” I dunno about that.
Hi, aynrandlover, and welcome to Great Debates. 'Round here we’re expected to back up wild-ass assertions like this with some actual facts. It’s a good thing this is your first time in here; otherwise I’d think you didn’t know any better.
The Gov’t isn’t a huge, like-minded collective bent on assimilating all of humanity (“Resistance is futile”). It’s composed of numerous factions, divisions, coalitions, some which oppose others, some which sort of support another but don’t always agree, etc.
What worries some, however, is a relatively popular mentality which wants more power to be transferred to Gov’t agencies. While this would generally succeed in making life easier (in general), it would also give more control to said agencies, and make the population more dependent on Gov’t operation. I have no doubt that there are very few (if any) prominent senators, representatives, spokespeople, etc. who have the deliberate thought of “Haha, we’re subverting American freedom!”… but I have no doubt that the process of losing freedom can happen accidently.
The problem comes in trying to find a balance 'tween ease of life and freedom. Some people place a higher value on freedom, some place a higher value on standard of living.
SPOOFE, I agree with everything you just said, except for the comment
When we use a term like freedom, we must be careful to note whether we’re speaking of a particular right or activity which is currently unregulated or held to be inalienable, or a high ideal of the complete absence of government compulsion. Obviously, we have never had freedom in the latter sense. If you meant to say that we could accidentally lose the fundamental freedoms claimed in the Bill of Rights, I’d like you to show how that can be done without the foreknowledge and concerted effort of a majority of elected officials.
A strong argument could of course be made that those freedoms can be so limited, abridged and restricted by legislation that they are, in effect, no longer real civil liberties, but you would again be hard-pressed to demonstrate that this could happen without the intent or understanding of the majority.
Gee, didn’t realize it was that much of a stretch guys.
Wild-ass ascertaions…well I admittedly don’t have statistics on my side, but the legislative body on every level of government is pretty active.
When a law is passed some action has been made illegal. Thus, where a person could do something today that same person would now be performing an illegal act tomorrow. Thus, he was less free to do things.
Thus, the government is more concerned with removing freedoms than protecting them. We trade freedom for security. Really, isn’t that the point of laws and government? Perhaps you have a different insight into what laws do.
Nowhere did I place some malevolent puppetmaster in government controlling all these things only to lock up its citizens. I neither believe that to be the case nor do I think it possible.
Let’s play “spot the flaw in the logic”!!
Hmm, it could be “when a law is passed some action has been made illegal”. Generally untrue. Most laws have nothing to do with personal freedoms. Your statement isn’t even always true in criminal law. Many times, activities are decriminalized, or the punishment reduced.
In civil rights law, it depends on your POV. An employer may lose the right to discriminate, but the employee gains the freedom from discrimination.
“Thus, the government is more concerned with removing freedoms than protecting them.” Again, untrue. Vast bureaucracies exist within the government to protect freedoms.
“We trade freedom for security.” Completely false. The laws and jurisprudence of the 20th Century show a remarkable trend towards increasing personal freedom (with a concomitant decrease in personal security.) Admittedly, there has been a decrease in freedom in the economic sector, but I don’t think this is what this thread is about.
You’re right, that isn’t what this thread is about. However, I simply stated that increase in laws = decrease in freedom. Whether this freedom is economic, social, criminal, etc etc.
If you would like, please show me how in the past 225+ years we have increased the total number of laws but gained freedom.
Laws that increase freedom? The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 21st, 23rd, 24th, and 25th Amendments to the Constitution come to mind.
That’s nice guys…boy you sure proved your point! The library-size container needed to contain all the laws on the books and yet we toss out a few amendments and those restrictions on freedom just go away!
Allow me to rephrase my previous post since the context was obviously not clear enough.
We started this country with the constitution. That is the basis for law. Since that time (this is the 225+ years part) we have made a huge body of laws. I find it well-nigh self-evident that holistically speaking our freedom has been curtailed because of those laws. This would make the government an institution whose general aim is to remove freedom at the price of security (which is, indeed, what many laws do). At any particular time there might be a downturn in restrictive over repealing laws, but overall the trend is very clear and doubtfully reversable.
Ok, anyrandlover maybe the first response was a little glib, try this link At the bottom is a listing of all laws passed and signed form the 106th congress. At the top is an analysis of laws passed. Out of the 104 bills to become law, only 26 are considered not procedural or budget related, of those I see none that are curtailing any freedoms(there’s an anaylsis of each). You may feel free to go through all 104 to prove your case though.
aynrandlover, perhaps the debate would benefit from an example of a loss of freedom. What would you like to do that you are not free to do now, but that you would have been free to do two hundred years ago?
stuffinb, I’ll get to that link a little later tonight. But again, you are talking about one congressional session and I am talking about the sum of all laws passed since the induction of American Government.
malden, you got it.
donuts in parking lots even when cars first came out. Speeding. Drinking and driving. Indentured servants (that is, a binding contract whereby one person worked for another for a period of time garnering no wages, usu. to pay off a debt) are outlawed, even if it would please both parties. Concealed carry laws in most of the 50 states. The ability for an employer to hire whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants. Pedophilia on the internet (that is, kiddie porn pics). Bestiality.
It is hardly my contention that all these laws are bad, either. As I said originally, practicality. However, I am not going to pretend that, were I alive 100 years ago, that what society existed would allow me more freedoms relative to existence than our current one does.
Qualifier: I am not a lawyer, nor do a play one on TV
Aynrandlover The problem as I see it, is how you’re defining freedoms. An example from your last post: Speeding, Doughnuts & even Concealed Carry I would call regulatory (I.e., not outlawing but defining) laws and not a curtailment of a freedom.
Well, I assume you misread my question, which was about things you want to do. Anyway…
Donuts in parking lots, speeding, drinking and driving: In these cases, it’s one freedom (yours, to do whatever you want) vs. another (the parking lot owner’s property rights, or the public at large’s freedom not to be killed by you, if you will.) Your beef is not with the government, it’s with Civilization.
Pedophilia/bestiality: Laws against such things far predate the USA.
Concealed carry: I admit I’m not up on my gun laws, but was it legal to carry concealed firearms 100+ years ago? I seem to recall reading that it wasn’t legal in Dodge City, but that’s anecdotal. You may have a point here.
Indentured servitude: Yes, we have lost the freedom to lose our freedom. I don’t know how, why, or when this came about, but there are other ways to settle debts. I have lost the “freedom” to ride a horse down Wall Street, but my freedom of movement and travel is not abridged at all because I can walk or take a taxi.
As for your comment about life 100 years ago, you are dead wrong if you are female or an ethnic/religious minority.
If you are arguing that the existence of a civilized society requires choices to be made between individual rights/freedoms and the rights/freedoms of society, and also requires choices between the rights of one individual and the rights of another, then I would agree with you. Is this the “self-evident” point you were making?
If you galloped your horse and buggy recklessly through Dodge City, especially if you were drunk, damn straight Marshall Earp would throw your ass in the pokey, assuming he didn’t just shoot you or your horse. If horse and buggys were physically capable of making donuts, that would have been considered reckless too, and you would’ve again been tossed in the clink.
The fact that laws are adapted to changing technology doesn’t mean that freedoms have been restricted. In many states that I know of (and all of them, AFAIK), you had to have lanterns hung on your stagecoach when riding at night. A precursor to brake lights/headlights.
I’m not sure I understand this. Are you saying that 100 years ago, you would have had more freedom? If that is your belief, you are mistaken. For example, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the 1920s-40s (a series of Supreme Court decisions held that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states). That meant that, unless state law forbade it (and several didn’t), you could have your home searched without a warrant, you could be arrested without probable cause, and a confession could be beaten out of you. The phrase “give him the third degree” was a New York police lingo for an, er, enthusiatic interrogation session.
Sure, back then, you could get away with a lot more, but that is simply because law enforcement wasn’t as efficient or sophisticated as it is now. It’s not because less things were illegal.
…let me get this straight…you want a case for freedom from a self-professed leftist rag like * Mother Jones *?? I would say that’s ratehr like sending me to Stormfront to make a case for racial equality!
Hmm…well, one thing I’d like from 200 years ago is the requirement to pay no income tax! Another thing would be cannibis cultivation! Let’s not even get started on firearms…
Well, I notice that two of the ones you left out were the 16th and 18th…and I would certainly say that those did a HORRIBLE job of increasing freedom, wouldn’t you?
It is not completely false that we trade freedom for security.
This tradeoff is necessary in every society. If everyone were free to do anything then there would be no security if someone decided to harm you.
Perhaps you were limiting this point to 20th Century America, Sua?
